November 25, 2007

Everyone talks about the time Rick Lazio invaded Hillary Clinton's space in a debate when the two were running for Senator. The myth is that people were viscerally offended by a man aggressively approaching a woman.

The Clinton campaign recently complained about "the boys" ganging up at a debate, and there was speculation that it was an attempt to get people to react to her opponents the way New York voters reacted to Rick Lazio.

This made me want to see the old video of the debate with Lazio, but I couldn't find it through Google and YouTube searching. My commenters were helping me search, and Ruth Anne Adams came up with the clip from the debate as it was used on "The Daily Show." But, finally, Hector Owen found the whole segment of the debate: here. (Ignore the error message. It should play.)

... Mrs. Clinton exploited an opportunity before a friendly audience of women to make a concerted attack on Mr. Lazio's debate tactics. Many supporters of Mrs. Clinton said they found Mr. Lazio to be pushy and disrespectful during the debate in Buffalo -- bullying her in a way that he would not have bullied a male opponent.

Mrs. Clinton's senior advisers have seized on that notion to blunt favorable portrayals of Mr. Lazio as strong-willed and determined, and Mrs. Clinton joined the effort yesterday. Expanding on a comment she made the morning after the debate, Mrs. Clinton received knowing chuckles and applause when she said having two younger brothers was the best preparation for her sometimes bruising encounter with Mr. Lazio.

Then she complained of having to share her lectern with an overly aggressive Mr. Lazio. (He approached her at the end of the debate and urged her to sign a document he said was a promise not to raise or spend any more soft money.)...

''How about that idea that you turned off women voters?'' Gabe Pressman of WNBC-TV asked [Lazio].

Mr. Lazio said women were being sold short by suggestions that they would not vote for him because he gave Mrs. Clinton a tough debate....

[S]o many political correspondents... have invoked the Rick Lazio moment...

The former Congressman’s charge across the stage in September of that year was equated with bullying, something that’s a far cry from the largely reasoned responses of Mrs. Clinton’s rivals on the stage the other night.

Still, we’re told it’s all gender politics, or as one of our colleagues once called it back then, hormonal politics (on both sides, folks).

Now this six-on-one stuff. Clinton stumbled in the debate, uncharacteristically but nowhere near fatally. In response, Penn & Co. are playing a good game of rope-a-dope.

After all, they have experience with this move, from the 2000 New York Senate race, when Republican Rick Lazio loomed into Clinton's personal space during a debate and quickly saw his numbers tank. For the Clinton campaign, the best thing would be to have the Philadelphia story played as Lazio II -- more bullies trying to intimidate her....

[U]sing gender this way is a setback. Hillary Clinton is woman enough to take these attacks like a man.

Now she's out there playing this victim card, and a lot of people in the media are not happy about this -- and I'll tell you what it is. You know, it's not just the cheapest form of pandering. To all of a sudden, say, "I'm a strong woman. I'm strong as a man! I can handle this job." Now all of a sudden to go victim, and to have your campaign tell the press, "Yeah, well, this is part of a long-planned strategy based on what happened when Rick Lazio invaded her space during a Senate debate for the election in New York."

So they're going back to that playbook because they think it worked then, but running for president is a little bit different from running for the Senate, especially if most of your career has been built up on, "You're tough, and you're not going to back down from anybody! You're Hillary Clinton! You've got a testicle lockbox."

(A testicle lockbox?)

But the fact is: It did work then. You can say, as Phillips did, that what Lazio did was different. But look at the video. Don't rely on the myth. Look at the video. It might have been inept theater to ply the piece of paper at her, but it wasn't an effort to bully the woman out of politics.

It was just like I remembered it to be in real time. He busted her. She deconstructed. Her supporters went hysterical about it. The media who was supporting went hysterical about it. They called Lazio names like bully, they said he invaded her space, they said he was picking on the girl, they said he'd NEVER have done that to a male opponent, or they sometimes they just said it was "bad theater." Whatever. But he deftly nailed her. It was excellent theater. Unless you were a Hillary supporter. Because her supporters didn't like it. Like you.

ruth anne adams said..."I can hardly believe you didn't title this post, "Let's take another look at that personal space invasion.""

I was toying with something like that, but didn't like the options.

"Nonetheless, I think you're onto something. What is that swirling I sense? It must be another Althouse vortex.I hope you sharpen up your carrot sticks and break out the onion rings. This is ready for some real Althouse fisking."

What's vortex-y about this post? More so than other Hillary posts today and recently?

Because I quoted RL? I rarely do that. Obviously, I don't follow him enough to know the code phrases like "testicle lockbox." (And I'm not endorsing that term.)

I don't get it. What is misogynist about pointing out the contradictions in the campaign mantra(s) of the Hillary campaigns.

In fact, the desire to have it both ways. "I am woman I am strong" and "Poor poor pitiful liitle me, needs protection from the mean men" is the very thing that undermines the feminist movement. As a woman, I am extremely resentful of women, like Hillary, who want to game it from both ends for their own personal advancement.

There is nothing misogynistic about pointing the discrepances out. Acting in the manner that Hillary does IS misogynistic. She has made it clear that she doesn't respect women who are the "Tammi Wynett stay at home making cookies types" and she undermines the women who are attempting to change that very mindset.

It will be Althouse "on demand". I mentioned this before but believe it will be very exciting. You will be behind a curtain (similar to Madonna in her video where the guys put money in the machine and the window moves up and she is dancing). We will submit questions and the curtain will rise.

You will be in a bathtub with bubbles strategically covering your private parts. One leg will be slung over the bathtub and the other will be behind your head. Miles Davis Siesta will be playing in the background, you will be having a glass of red (nat), and dipping strawberries in whip cream as you answer our questions. But the questions will be "Truth or Dare" similar to Madonna in her fabulous movie "Truth or Dare".

I believe this will be incredibly well received and the blogosphere will react with immediate awe and respect. This "vlog" will catch on throughout the blogs and you will be heralded as ground breaking, setting the standard, and creating a new medium. We will be taking the blog world in a new direction and am looking forward to participate.

A key difference between this post and the lunching with the bloggers and onion rings posts is that this one has no sex.... and no food. And I'm not imposing a strong interpretation about what things symbolize/remind me of. There's no reason to get mad at me for this. All anyone needs to do is look at the video and say what they see.

Actually.... since this is Ann's blog, it IS all about her. Just like on my blog it is all about me and if you had one of your own...it could be all about you.

Anyone who cares enough to vote is qualified to analyze the Presidential race and the candidates. Doesn't mean their analysis will agree with mine or that their analysis is even correct. You don't have to be a professional talking head to be qualified to have an opinion.Opinions are just like the nether parts of our anatomies, everyone has one.

My opinion of Hillary is that she is pulling out all the stops to play the victim card and blowing the slightest criticisms out of proportion. While at the same time is trying to portray herself as a powerful leader.

If I tried that stunt in my profession, I would be a laughing stock and deserving of being considered a manipulative bitch.

Ok Missy Mary, I'll take on her policies. She is a committed socialist who wants to raise taxes, distribute the money from one segment of society (that one that works) and provide cradle to grave social services (for those that don't work) that are going to bankrupt our economy and further drive the dollar into the tank. Business will be even more enticed to go overseas and we will lose more manufacturing jobs. Doctors will be harder to find (see the situation in Britain) because there is no incentive to work like a slave for a government controlled health care program. A program guaranteed to be inefficient, expensive and a complete failure as all socialist programs are.

Her economic and social policies, what little we have heard of them are an economic disaster. Her social policies are designed to pander to a government created victim class and divide this country along racial and class status.

If Hillary were painted green and had balls the size of the Jolly Green Giant, I would still despise her tactics and her policies. She is a hypocrite of the highest order.

Is that good enough for you?

And by the way, sweet cheeks, I'm a woman working in what is considered a man's occupation and have had to deal the the good ole boy network and male chauvinism all my life. I'm not waiting for anyone to help me and I have NEVER played the poor pitiful me card and I have NEVER stabbed other women in the back to get where I am today. The same cannot be said for Hillary. I despise hypocrites and manipulative people be they male or female.

If you think people should stop talking about Hillary's gender as a part of the political campaign I suggest you email her managers, since they are the ones who continually bring up her gender ..waaah mean men.

Want to know why they do that? So we won't really discuss her political/socialistic agenda. Much better to throw the feminist chaff into the air than put the cleansing light of the sun on her history or beliefs.

Your ditherings are amusing sure, but despite the tenured law professering career, you're about as qualified to analyze presidential candidates as Freeman Hunt or red headed Ruth Anne.

Your ditherings, Mary, on your own blog are almost amusing too, and not uniformly focused on actual policy chat.

You should probably cut people some slack and not aim low just because you disagree with AN OPINION. In most instances, given the fact that Ann is a law professor, you get some pretty detailed and technical discussion when it comes to... LAW. All else is kind of a bonus.

***

When running for president, there are a number of things that the candidates might consider: everything from actual policy, to what states they visit, to how they appear when interacting with the voters and media. Why ignore aspects of that?

As for Hillary, I think she will use whatever is thrown against her. If it suits her to play victim this week to cause a short term setback to a certain candidate, she will use that. And if next week requires repudiating victimhood, she will play that too. Political jujitsu.

Because she is female, she has a wider arsenal of tactics to use, and that is not necessarily wrong. It's a matter of calculating whether using certain methods will result in a net benefit over the long term.

Thank god for the younger women who came up under Title IX and learned our bodies are not ourselves. American women can be so much more than the shabby limitations placed on us in the past, and that some here have reason to continually cling to.

So, you don't really want to discuss Hillary's proposals after all. I see you would rather be a misogynist and bash other women who have made successful career moves.

Gee.... how in the world did we ever make it before Title IX leveled the playing field? Hmmm... I wonder just who it was that enabled Title IX to exist in the first place?

Wittle (suck up) Dust Bunny says: "Gee.... how in the world did we ever make it before Title IX leveled the playing field? Hmmm... I wonder just who it was that enabled Title IX to exist in the first place?"

You think a bunch of men got together and arbitrarily DEMANDED equal rights and money for women's athletic, etc. programs?

I get the sense that you think Hillary is somehow playing dirty by attempting to portray her male opponents as bullies.

I just don't get this. Is it similarly dirty when (usually) Republican candidates attack their opponents as being effeminate sissyboy girlymen (for taking a dim view of war, torture, etc.)? Or would you claim that such rhetoric never gets used?

I think given the long history of male candidates trying to out-manly each other, it's unreasonable to expect the first legit female candidate not to try to use that tendency against them.

Sure, Edwards and Obama are hardly knuckle-dragging cave men, but the Republican candidates are, and as we know Hillary is already running a general election campaign.

"Or, are you saying everybody should only comment if it relates to Ann or what Ann says or thinks?"

No Lucky. I'm saying that since this is Ann's blog she can discuss anything she wants and we are free to ignore anything she says too. If she wants to talk about squirrels or carrot sticks it is her prerogative. We don't have to comment or even read the posts.

It is so tiresome to see the people who come to blogs (not just this one) and bitch because the host or hostess isn't addressing the topics that they want to hear or is talking about an off the wall aspect of a person or event. They want to hijack the threads and make the blog all about their views. Some times it can be funny. Mostly it is just rude and tedious.

It's like going to a Chinese restaurant and whining that they aren't serving Borscht.

Mary is all whiney because the topic of some posts about Hillary reference that she is a woman (as if that is a big revelation). She wants everyone to have HER point of view and if you don't there is no room for reasonable discussion, just name calling.

The fact that Hillary is female, is a legitimate topic to discuss on many levels. We haven't had a serious shot at having a woman President before this and the mechanics of running for this position is really plowing new ground. We also haven't had a serious African/American candidate before either (Colin Powell didn't want to run remember). Should we ignore the dynamics of Obama and his ethnicity? How about Mitt Romney as a Mormon, another first time for President occurance. Ignore that too?

You think a bunch of men got together and arbitrarily DEMANDED equal rights and money for women's athletic, etc. programs?

No, I think that "I" did that.

So Mary can quit repeating her mantra about how Title IX has changed everything for her generation and she should get down on her knees and thank ME and other women of my generation who made it possible for her little ungrateful, ignorant ass.

Off the top of my head, I can't recall any other debate where one of the debaters left his lectern and waltzed over to the opposing candidate's lectern. I suppose it has happened, but it is pretty unusual behavior. Invading space? Not really but he did violate behavioral norms. Barged? No. Did he get louder and more emphatic when he was closer to her? Yeah, it seemed to me he did. Was it a mistake? You bet it was because she knew how to play it to her advantage. Minor-league players don't have a chance against big-league players.

Wittle (suck up) Dust Bunny says: "So Mary can quit repeating her mantra about how Title IX has changed everything for her generation and she should get down on her knees and thank ME and other women of my generation who made it possible for her little ungrateful, ignorant ass."

Margo Channing: Funny business, a woman's career, the things you drop on the way up the ladder so you can move faster. You forget you'll need them again when you get back to being a woman. It's one career all females have in common - being a woman. Sooner or later we've got to work at it no matter how many other careers we've had or wanted. And in the last analysis nothing is any good unless you can look up just before dinner or turn around in bed and there he is. Without that you're not a woman. You're something with a French provincial office or a book full of clippings but you're not a woman. Slow curtain, the end. (All About Eve, 1950)

"Maybe if you'd played on a team with all women, you'd realize that being a woman doesn't get you any special treamtment. You have to think and figure things out for yourself. Even old cats can learn to compete today, right? You're not riding your special position without allowing others to challenge you? Not afraid of open competition, are you?"

One of the things that made public education so good, back in the bad old days, was the fact that so many highly qualified, maybe overqualified young women went into teaching because many other avenues were closed off to them. Public education will never recover from the blow dealt it by women's lib. To a lesser extent the same is true of nursing. But of course the bad old days were absolutely bad and the good new days are absolutely good, so sayeth the fems.

Lucky, last post directed to you. I don't answer child molesters. Have fun whacking off to your autographed picture of Roman Polanski and don't concern yourself with my posts, as I will not reply to you. Look forward to seeing what you look like in your upcoming appearance in "To Catch a Predator."

Is it similarly dirty when (usually) Republican candidates attack their opponents as being effeminate sissyboy girlymen (for taking a dim view of war, torture, etc.)? Or would you claim that such rhetoric never gets used?

Just for the entertainment value, I'd love to see this actually happen. But, in reality, it never does, except in the left's imagination.

Let me just say, it's funny how everybody who keeps telling us Clinton is a woman instead of taking on her policiesLet me just say, if I knew what HRC's policies were, I'd take them on. The only concrete policy I've seen is that she intends to continue W.'s forever war in the Middle East, including bombing Iran. Because our ground forces are worn out, she'll have to bring back the draft -- this time women will be included.

I believe when Dust Bunny Queen started her career, women who made it in a man's world had to fight off the assumption they were either sluts or bulldykes. So yes, Mary, she did pave the way for turdettes like you.

But the fact is: It did work then. You can say, as Phillips did, that what Lazio did was different. But look at the video. Don't rely on the myth. Look at the video. It might have been inept theater to ply the piece of paper at her, but it wasn't an effort to bully the woman out of politics.

But...can it really be said that this embarrassing moment was in any way a turning point? Rep. Lazio was a third-stringer at best. The guy who was supposed to oppose Clinton from the GOP was Giuliani, who got sidetracked by cancer. Candidates of such little skill can be attributed with lots of mythical faults -- reverse Teflon. That was Lazio. Hillary trying to pin the same rap on Obama, Edwards or Richardson won't work in the same way. Right now, it seems to have legs because HRC is the only woman in a gaggle of male candidates, but when it gets down to her vs. the surviving challenger, she probably won't even try it.

The only concrete policy I've seen is that she intends to continue W.'s forever war in the Middle East, including bombing Iran.

You remind me of Europe in 1938: "If we don't offend Hitler, he will leave us alone". We either handle rogue states like Iran now, or we fight a larger and more catastrophic war a few years down the road. Which would you prefer?

Its funny how the Left is so anti-war, but then refuses to hold soft power diplomacy more accountable. If you really want to avoid a "forever war" in the ME, you should be holding multilateral institution's feet to the fire. Because if diplomacy fails [as it did after 12 years and 14 UN resolutions re Iraq] then war is the only alternative.

The Lazio Moment: I disagree a tad with Althouse, though I have no sympathy whatsoever for "strong women who made it on their own " - who basically got where they are on the money or political clout of powerful husbands (Hillary, Liddy Dole, Daschle's wife as head lobbyist for airlines when he chaired Transportation) or the wealth of hubbies (Diane Feinstein, Boxer, Jane Harmon all have billionaire hubbys that bankrolled their careers).

Not that I like the nepotic roots of folks like Teddy Kennedy and Elliot Sptzer. On their own, with different last names and wealth and clout - Teddy would have been a fat wardheeler in a Boston suburb with a few convictions but who knew everyones name at several bars, and Spitzer a money-obsessed ambulance-chaser on the move...

But, honestly, seeing that debate live - Lazio made a Bush League debate stunt using a piece of paper prop (The Pledge) and walking over and shoving it in his opponents face. And as a big tall guy, towering over her and trying to intimidate in a way that he WOULD NOT have done with a guy - who would basically told him to shove his little paper up his rude ass and get back to his podium.

(After the election, Lazio admitted it was a stupid move that pissed off voters)

However, Althouse is right that Hillary can't play both sides. And Bill and the media and Feministas can't keep closing ranks around her using the female victim card

"Stop picking on the woman! It detracts from her image of a powerful self-made woman, a trailblazer - and the syncophatic media support for such female strength and inevitability --and Bill said that he takes the blame for Hillarycare! So there, all you misogynists!"

**************Whatever became of goofy Rick Lazio? Whatever became of Arsenio Hall?

You remind me of Europe in 1938: "If we don't offend Hitler, he will leave us alone". We either handle rogue states like Iran now, or we fight a larger and more catastrophic war a few years down the road. Which would you prefer?

Ah, the sociopath with the endless hardon for war and torture returns.

Not that I like the nepotic roots of folks like Teddy Kennedy and Elliot Sptzer. On their own, with different last names and wealth and clout - Teddy would have been a fat wardheeler in a Boston suburb with a few convictions but who knew everyones name at several bars, and Spitzer a money-obsessed ambulance-chaser on the move...

fen: Ground troops during the Vietnam War served ONE tour of duty and went home. Our troops in Iraq have all served two and some are on their third. How much combat can you take?By Robert BurnsASSOCIATED PRESS

2:49 p.m. April 11, 2007

WASHINGTON – Stretched thin by four years of war, the Army is adding three months to the standard yearlong tour for all active-duty soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan, an unpopular step aimed at maintaining the troop buildup in Baghdad.

The change, announced Wednesday by Defense Secretary Robert Gates, is the latest blow to an all-volunteer Army that has been given ever-shorter periods of rest and retraining at home between overseas deployments.

Rep. Ike Skelton, D-Mo., chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, said the longer tours will have a “chilling effect” on recruiting and the Army's ability to keep soldiers from quitting the service.

“We also must not underestimate the enormous negative impact this will have on Army families,” Skelton said.

Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, one of only two Republicans who voted to set a timetable for beginning to withdraw troops from Iraq, said Gates' announcement was a “stark admission that the administration's policies in Iraq are doing permanent damage to our military.”

Carol Frennier, whose husband, Command Sgt. Maj. Steve Frennier, is in Iraq, said she had prepared herself and her family for a longer deployment.

“They kind of told us to expect 12 months to 18 months,” she said. “We were already prepared to have them extended.” And her family has been through an extended tour of duty before.

“Last time they said nine months, and it was 14 months,” Frennier said.

At a Pentagon news conference, Gen. Peter Pace, the Joint Chiefs chairman who appeared at the news conference with Gates, acknowledged that longer tours in Iraq and Afghanistan make life harder for many soldiers.

“Is it an additional strain to go from 12 months to 15 months? Of course it is,” Pace said. “Is it in combat and therefore even more difficult? Of course it is. And that's why the entire nation should be thankful that we have such incredible young men and women who, knowing that, who volunteer to serve this nation in a time of great need.”

"Rogue states like Iran" Tell me why we are not handling rogue states like North Korea and Venezuela? In fact, Venezuela used to be our friend, until the W. administration let our relations deteriorate.

Hitler wanted to recreate the Holy Roman Empire. Iran has no such imperial or even extraterritorial ambitions. The only rogue nation invading other countries at will is unfortunately the United States.

Because if diplomacy fails [as it did after 12 years and 14 UN resolutions re Iraq] then war is the only alternative.

If we apply your criteria uniformly, we should be invading the other rogue nuclear state in the Middle East -- Israel. Don't you think that would be rather a dramatic step?

No, the US would be much better off if we handed this particular tar baby off to some other group -- maybe even the United Nations.

fls: fen: Ground troops during the Vietnam War served ONE tour of duty and went home. Our troops in Iraq have all served two and some are on their third. How much combat can you take?

Well probably quite a bit more. Our servicemen in WW II and Korea went over and stayed there for years fighting to win their wars. There was no such thing as a tour of duty. Tours of duty are artifacts of the volunteer army. As in they volunteered to join the military, and continue to re-enlist and volunteer to join the military, despite the "hardship" of multiple tours.

christopher: Ah, the sociopath with the endless hardon for war and torture returns.

Yes, we already know your arguments are so weak that the only card you can play is an attempt to marginalize me with ad hom attacks. So really, there's no need for you to keep surredering the field - we get it, you don't have a valid argument...

Iran = a threat to the world like Nazi Germany under Hitler?

Lets see, theocratic regime & rogue nation who sponsors terrorist orgs, uses them for anonymous proxy attacks, is researching WMDs, intends to recreate a Caliphate across the ME and parts of Europe. An ideology that stones women to death for speaking their minds, buries homosexuals alive, and maintains that "infidels" deserve to be incinerated.

freeman,When you've graduated Yale Law School, worked at the Yale Child Study Center, taken on cases of child abuse at Yale-New Haven Hospital, volunteered New Haven Legal Services to provide free advice for the poor, voted one of the top 100 attorneys in America (twice), and elected as a U.S Senator of New York...

...get back to me.

Or...why not just list all of your many accomplishments in life...and be sure to list all you've done for those less fortunate.

If we apply your criteria uniformly, we should be invading the other rogue nuclear state in the Middle East -- Israel. Don't you think that would be rather a dramatic step?

To draw equivalence between Iran and Israel, you need to show that Israel sponsors proxy attacks by terrorist groups against Western interests. Otherwise, your comparison is rather stupid.

No, the US would be much better off if we handed this particular tar baby off to some other group -- maybe even the United Nations.

Speaking of doing the same thing and expecting a different result...

The international community failed to reign in Iraq. Even worse, they provided rogue states like Iran a model to work from - the fecklessness of the UN members, the corruption of France and Russia re sanctions, and liberal reliance on "soft power" diplomacy that can be exploited and drawn out for 12 years. And your "best" solution is to repeat the same mistakes of 1938 and 1991 all over again. Frickin brilliant.

Fen said..."How does my comment in any way indicate my "being afraid" of Hillary?"

Well...

When you've graduated Yale Law School, worked at the Yale Child Study Center, taken on cases of child abuse at Yale-New Haven Hospital, volunteered New Haven Legal Services to provide free advice for the poor, voted one of the top 100 attorneys in America (twice), and elected as a U.S Senator of New York...

...get back to me.

Or...why not just list all of your many accomplishments in life...and be sure to list all you've done for those less fortunate.

Fen said..."Right back at you bitch. You're constantly referring to Bush as an idiot. So how do your accomplishments compare to Yale and Harvard?"

I have a Masters Degree in Business from major university, currently own my own business, have owned five successful businesses over the past 30 years, do hundreds of hours of charity work every year with local charities, donate more than $10,000 a year to youth groups, donated a kidney to a good friend, and have a lovely wife who does much of the same, except she has a Masters in English and is an executive in the airline industry and hasn't had to donate an organ....yet.

As for Bush...keep on sucking, asshole...you're just another moron among the 30% that still thinks the man knows what he's doing.

And I love the term "bitch"...pick that up while serving in the military?

Lets see, theocratic regime & rogue nation who sponsors terrorist orgs, uses them for anonymous proxy attacks, is researching WMDs, intends to recreate a Caliphate across the ME and parts of Europe. An ideology that stones women to death for speaking their minds, buries homosexuals alive, and maintains that "infidels" deserve to be incinerated.

Compared to radical Islam, Hitler is over-rated.

Almost none of the above ravings has the slightest relationship to reality.

Tell me about Iran's fearsome economy and war machine with which it's going to invade Europe and install a Calihate. You can't, because neither exists anywhere but in your sick fevered imagination.

Iran is a minor irritant who if Bush hadn't deliberately provoked would be on its way to transitioning to something approaching a Western friendly democracy.

And your likening it to Nazi Germany is a pathetic attempt to justify your endless hardon for war and your pathetic fear of scary brown people.

freeman,When you've graduated Yale Law School, worked at the Yale Child Study Center, taken on cases of child abuse at Yale-New Haven Hospital, volunteered New Haven Legal Services to provide free advice for the poor, voted one of the top 100 attorneys in America (twice), and elected as a U.S Senator of New York...

...get back to me.

Or...why not just list all of your many accomplishments in life...and be sure to list all you've done for those less fortunate.

We'll compare...

(1) What do Hillary's accomplishments have to do with her being strong?

(2) As for a comparison between my accomplishments and Hillary's, what would be the point of that? What would that demonstrate? How is that even tangentially related to the topic?

(1) This is the Internet, listing accomplishments is silly. How would anyone verify anything?

(2) I fully concede that Hillary's resume is more accomplished than my own. What does that mean? I wasn't arguing that I was more accomplished than Hillary? I wasn't even arguing that I am stronger than Hillary. The discussion isn't about me. It's about what makes a strong woman.

Does it indicate strength to ride your husband's coattails? Does it indicate strength to sell out feminism for power? Does it indicate strength to claim that men are ganging up on you?

Lucy: Fen, This single statement illustrates how incredibly uninformed and thoroughly ignorant you really are:

"Compared to radical Islam, Hitler is over-rated."

Did you even go to high school???

If you disagree with my comparison, you should be able to refute it with valid argument. Instead you resort to ad hom, ie. you fail. Did your high school teach you how to debate?

BTW...

Fen said: "Right back at you bitch. You're constantly referring to Bush as an idiot. So how do your accomplishments compare to Yale and Harvard?"

Lucy: I have a Masters Degree in Business from major university

Haha. After all your bluster towards freeman, you're still too much of a coward to list the university or masters degree. Why? Because we both know your education doesn't stack up to what Bush recieved at Yale and Harvard. Too funny. What a sniveling coward you are, like all bullies.

And I won't bother responding to Mary. Althouse will be along soon to delete all her comments and all responses to her shortly, so there's no point.

I realize that this isn't strictly relevant to the topic of discussion here, but I thought it would be a relevant place to mention that I have perfect GRE scores, three advanced degrees (all from Ivy League schools), 9th-dan black belts in taekwondo and aikido, donate my entire income to charity each year - I can afford to, because I have this huge trust fund, which allows me to split my time between Telluride and this cute little house in St. Tropez with my darling French actress wife - have advised the last 3 presidents and last 2 British PMs (strictly hush-hush, you understand) and I have donated my spleen, liver, a lung, both kidneys, and all my GI tract to needy third world farmers. Just in case it ever comes up.

"Rather than attempt to answer my arguments, you build a strawman and attempt to change the subject."

Is this your first time here? That's all Lucy does. He couldn't carry a argument in a bucket. Well, he also advocates having sex with a 13 year old, but in his defense, ONLY if you're a famous movie director. He also suffers from a short term memory and neglected to mention his generous donation of his brain many years ago.Assuming he is telling the truth about his business he is a walking, talking testament to America. If he can make it, ANYONE can. God bless him.

Wow....I'm so glad I spent the afternoon painting my toenails, tweezing my eyebrows and making martinis for my husband all the while wearing my darling little apron and pearls while Mary has been pissing all over the internet.

I consider that an afternoon well spent on my part.

Back to the original topic...remember folks? Lazio invaded Hillary's personal space in a debate and how did she handle it?. From what I saw it WAS an invasion of personal space, and she was appropriately surprised/taken aback/startled. WTF are you doing over here????? Why aren't you at your designated spot. She had every right to be offended in a debate setting.

However, she turned it into faux feminine outrage. No man would have been able to play the poor poor me, help me and protect me card. If Hillary was to play on a level playing field, then...why should she be able to do so?

When Gore did the same thing, what recourse did Bush have but to ignore it. However, had he been "Bushette", I guess he could have whined about being a put upon woman. Talk about a double standard!

Instead of saying, why are you invading my space...get back to your own podium, Hillary gets melodramatically say that the "man" is mean to the little woman routine.

How convenient and expeditious for Hillary.

I consider myself a feminist in that I want to see equal treatment for the sexes without having the natural dynamics between the sexes destroyed. Equality, not dominance from either side.

I fought for these things when Mary was just her Daddy's wet dream. To see someone like Hillary pay lip service to this ideal, while destroying other women to get what she wants and gaming the system for her own personal advancement.

Do I feel passionate about this? Yep. Do I feel that Hillary is betraying everything that I and my Mother fought for for equality for Hillary's own selfish purposes... you bet I do.

Oh, and do I think that people like Mary are mindless twits who have no clue? Well, you can extrapolate from here......

1. If you're referring to Polanski I said he was talented, that he was living in France, that the "victim" had forgiven him, and that there have always been rumors that he was set up for blackmail...I never denied he had sex with anybody.

2. If you're referring to Woody Allen, his wife was NEVER his step-child, she was Mia Farrow's adopted daughter.

I figure it is safe to say GAHrie already knew that you are nothing close to what he is looking for. Lighten up a bit, Hun. Like you have already accurately stated..."The internet is one big circle jerk", and right now you are looking like one of the biggest jerks out here. Just some friendly adivice :-).

1) Sexual dalliances with slaves, while contemptable by today's standards, were neither unusual, or considered perversions in the 18th and 19th centuries.

2) There is some debate as to whether it was Thomas Jefferson, or another family member, who sired Henning's children.

3) I actually am not a big fan of Jefferson. I recognize the amazing contributions he made to liberty and the founding of our nation, but I am much more partial to his political enemies, the Federalists, particularly Hamilton.

4) Do you really mean to compare a pop culture director with one of the greatest figures in history? If so, you are being absurd.

The National Genealogical Society Quarterly then published articles reviewing the evidence from a genealogical perspective and concluded that the link between Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings was valid.

"But its's so pitiful seeing some of you folks competing for that pat, when you've got to know by now that she has zero respect and often ignores your pleas for attention."

Pleas for attention??? Well, I cant speak for anyone else (since I am only a part time visitor) but I dont see most folks here as needing a pat on the head from Althouse. I check out this site to get a few laughs as well as an education. This is one of the more civilized blogs on the internet, and there are many witty, colorful and knowledgable comentators here. Plus, Ann posts on a wide variety of topics.

"And that, folks, is what passed for a strong and competitive girl"

Its interesting how you used the past tense. Are you saying that Althouse is NOT strong and competitive? Enen if you are right, so what? Does she (in your mind) NEED to be strong and competitive"?

"I'm sure that frightens Ann a bit."

Somehow I just dont see Althouse as being the one who is a bit frightened here :-(.

The National Genealogical Society Quarterly then published articles reviewing the evidence from a genealogical perspective and concluded that the link between Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings was valid.

The link between the Jefferson family and the Hennings family (through Sally Hennings)

I acknowledged this. The issue is which member of the Jefferson family? Some maintain it was one of Thomas's brothers.

Regardless, as was clear from my post:

1) The actions of Thomas Jefferson have nothing what so ever to do with Woody Allen.

2) It is irrational and worthless to judge historical figures by contemporary standards.

He signed the largest tax increase in U.S. history, increased the national debt from $700 billion to $3 trillion, moving the United States from being the world's largest international creditor to the world's largest debtor nation, ignored the AIDS crisis, created a massive debt, was knee-deep to his ass in the Iran Contra scandal, and supported Ollie North's operation out of the White House basement...oh, and don't forget the 250 marines he left unprotected and murdered...but then agin, we kicked ass in Grenada.

Sexual dalliances with slaves, while contemptable by today's standards, were neither unusual, or considered perversions in the 18th and 19th centuries.

I don't know if it was considered a "perversion" as such, but it WAS considered entirely immoral. It wasn't the least bit unusual, no, but then neither were other immoral activities like prostitution or keeping a mistress.

I don't know if it was considered a "perversion" as such, but it WAS considered entirely immoral. It wasn't the least bit unusual, no, but then neither were other immoral activities like prostitution or keeping a mistress.

Or say...slave owning? Morality, then as now, was very much a "different strokes for different folks" thing.

ALL POSTING BY MARY -- A FORMER STUDENT OF MINE WHO KNOWS SHE IS BANNED -- SHOULD BE REGARDED AS STALKING. SHE KNOWS THIS AND SHE HAS BEEN BANNED REPEATEDLY. EVERYTHING SHE WRITES IS BEING DELETED AND SHE KNOWS THIS YET CONTINUES TO POST. DO NOT RESPOND TO HER. SHE NEEDS TO DESIST NOW.

Mary, you are well aware that I delete all your comments, no matter what you write and I've been doing this for a long time. I have told you repeatedly that you are banned here. You are harassing me. I have told you before that I regard any posting by you here as harassment. You have continued. You are in complete bad faith. DO NOT POST AGAIN. ANYTHING. EVER.

Not that everybody should follow my shining example, but I've always stopped commenting when asked to, where I'm not welcome. It's rare, of course. If it's a regular happening for you, I could see that you might want to persist anyway.

After looking at the full clip it is my considered opinion that Rick Lazio still comes off looking like a dick. Running over with a multiple-paged agreement and demanding that Clinton sign it w/o giving her even a ghost of a chance to read it first is bullying pure and simple. He's asking Clinton to take his word for what's in the document and, if you're a Clinton, the last thing you're going to be inclined to do is take a Republican's word for anything. Ask Vincent Foster if you don't believe me.

The video proves the exact opposite of your point. As for contemporaneous observations, I put together some remarks by Maureen Dowd (hey, if you can quote Limbaugh, I can quote MoDo) that seem prescient on the effect of the campaign. Ricky lost because he looked like a tinhorn schoolyard bully. It takes a little man to make Hillary look like the calm rational one.

Fen said...Lets see, theocratic regime & rogue nation who sponsors terrorist orgs, uses them for anonymous proxy attacks, is researching WMDs, intends to recreate a Caliphate across the ME and parts of Europe.

The Caliphate being recreated is inside your sorry little fantasies. What is your evidence that Iran intends some sort of massive territorial conquest? And, even if it did, what is your evidence that it possesses any capabality whatsoever to do so? I'm talking, like, armies and material. You know, like Hitler and Stalin used in their conquests of Europe, the kinds of things "rational" policy makers consider when making decisions.

An ideology that stones women to death for speaking their minds, buries homosexuals alive, and maintains that "infidels" deserve to be incinerated.

unlike our friends in pakistan and saudi arabia...right. north korea kills 10,000's/year without any ideological justification whatsoever, when does that glorious war begin??

Exalted: And, even if it did, what is your evidence that it possesses any capabality whatsoever to do so? I'm talking, like, armies and material. You know, like Hitler and Stalin used in their conquests of Europe, the kinds of things "rational" policy makers consider when making decisions.

"Rational" policy makers don't assume the next war will be fought like WW2. Please rediscover the definition of "asymmetric warfare".

You probably still think Iran will be deterred by MAD. And you'll likely refuse to see the threat of Sharia until they ban your MTV.